van aaken

I think if you type in "MEDICINE & SCIENCE IN SPORTS & EXERCISE" once on the website type in "THE EFFECT OF TRAINING ON RUNNING ECONOMY AND PERFORMANCE IN RECREATIONAL ATHLETES" That should bring you to the site. I found it very interestering, but then even my wife considers me a geek!

vladimir wrote:

Does anyone remember Eric & Barry Geisler from NYC- ran well as a youth at all distances.

Barry's retired now and spends the winter in Florida. He lifts weights a little (he used to be the strongest guy in the gym bar none) and has replaced his running with spinning class, which apparently is a lot of fun. Barry knows every trail at Van Cortlandt and I always enjoyed running with him there. I'll see him in March and would be happy to say hello for you if you'd like.

BTW, about 40 people celebrated Ted Corbitt's birthday this past weekend. Just like van Aaken, Ted seems like a guy who really liked to experiment with himself and his training.

All I found was an abstract. And it reminded me of why I could never do algebra. But after several attempts, I gather that the study found that more intense training allowed the subjects to run at very high speeds for longer periods of time.

None of that is surprising, nor does it really have much to say about training methods like those of van Aaken, Lydiard, or similar approaches. One of the huge problems with all these sorts of studies is that they take a project that takes years to complete, making yourself the best distance runner you can, and try to find out how to do that in an eight week study.

Over the short term, intense, fast running will make you faster than lower intensity running will. But you have to look at the long term picture, as guys like van Aaken and Lydiard did. Lydiard certainly knew that you'd get dramatic improvements with short term, intensive training and that's why he had people doing that as their final race preparation. van Aaken had his own ways of incoporating fast work as he also saw the value in that sort of training. But none of these studies have ever assessed the impact of doing various sorts of training for years at a time.

I seem to recall reading that you know George Beinhorn HRE.

It would be interesting to hear his thoughts on this thread. I think Joe Henderson had one of his weekly articles about George in which George stated he would run long and slow if he ever attempted a stab at serious running again.

I know that he translated both the yellow book, The van Aaken Method and Manfred Steffny's Marathoning.

HRE - Reconciling these scientific studies with first-hand experience is an ongoing dilemma. Like you say, the short-term vs long-term perspective is a big reason. Also, I think there is a strong human tendency - subconscious maybe - to tell people what they want to hear. If a large group of people want to hear something, you can bet that someone will step forward and tell them whatever it is they want to hear. Impatient cultures want to hear something can be done in a short time. Presto - scientific studies appear saying you don't need to put in much time. Sort of like demand then supply. Just a strange theory.

Look at the guff Van Aaken and Lydiard got. The impatient ego doesn't like their methods. Hence, a lot of resistance.

Well - something like that.

Cheers,

Paul

Add to that is "less is better". It may be; but it seems to me that way too many young kids (gosh, it makes me sound old...which I am!) today just simply jump to conclusion based on some so-called "scientific" research that too much training (like 40-miles a week) would create "over-use syndrome". If you tried and tried and tried and figured that long distance work (mileage) is not the direction you should take; fine. Now you know. For some, they don't get any benefit (or see any improvement) till you get up--way up there, like 120 or 150 miles. Some can't handle it. But you never know till you try that.

History has shown over and over again that anything worthy takes time and a lot of hard work. Anything or anybody that tells me otherwise, I would approach with great specticism. Even my 13-year-old daughter knows that winning a basketball game by 1 point (lots of nervous energy and trying and all) is sweeter than winning a game by 30 points (easy!).

Too soon old. To late wise. That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

Wish I had known then what I knoe now.

I have no idea how you can convince young people that the long slow way is almost always better than the seemingly fast way. I was very impatient at that age and this generation seems no different.

Nobby, you have hit the nail on the head. In the USA we are always told that we can "eat more and lose weight"; "work from home less hours and make more money"; "train less and run farther and faster"; The problem is many individuals buy into these methods of improving your life. If we set a priority and establish steps within it we will meet our dreams and goals- provide that we are honest with what we have to work with and how hard we are will to work for it. Your trial and error by individual is very deep for a younger individual- I think this is more of a culture thing. No offense intended, but as I stated once before (somewhere) Japan looks way into the future (companies, country as well as individuals). The USA looks at today and perhaps as far off as next year. Just look at our athletic teams/individuals or our political scene- why would those planning on running for President make some of the comments they do a year in advance- no forsight.

Did you use van Aaken's ideas for pretty much your whole career or just parts? And if just for parts, did it give the best results, in your opinion?

I would say that I used it for most of my life. I did try others, but either they did not work for me or I did not give them enough time. I would say that for me - it was/is the best. I think if I had remained faithful and not become injured it would have really paid dividens. I started useing it before I even knew of him and just followed the concepts that I had heard of from Bob Campbell from MA. He actually served as my first unofficial coach. I also drew on concepts that talked about the golden 100 mile weeks. Well in the start of the hard/easy system "why not run every other day for 25 miles" I do not remember who stated that, but it was hard/easy to an extreme. Bottom line is I followed his training almost from the start.

I believe that Cliff Temple had written an article that RW published in which he suggested that a marathoner wishing to run 100 mpw might do it most productively by doing four 25 mile runs each week and having three days off.

Bob Campbell! Wow, there's a name from the past. I believe he died two or three years ago.

Are you still sort of "van Aakening" with your current running?

Yes it was Cliff Temple- you saved me a trip to the cellar to look up the "guide to distance running" I think that was the book it was in. Yes, Mr. Campbell was quite a guy. I first started writing to him in the 60's and he was nice enough to respond. He even put me in touch with another runner from New Jersey (by the name of George Sheenan)- this was all pre runnning boom so we were weird. Mr. Campbell actually helped me at Boston one year. I had a good race for me at the time (I think around 2:25 or so). Well the thing at the time (for those of us old enough to remember) we used to cut our numbers down- eliminate everything but the actual number. Well my number was something like 39 and I cut it down including the space within the 9. Well it ripped and was recorded as some one else. Well I go look at the sheet (posted in the hallway of the Pru) and my name is no where to be found, however a man with the bib number of 311 (or something like that) was listed as having my time. I hear this guy saying that he thought that he had run around 3:00 and they gave him a time of 2:25. Long story short Mr Campbell made me promise to never again cut my number then he set it straight. Another nice guy. I am still following the basic concepts, but too much time off from injuries have taken a toll. I just started back running in September 2005 and I hope to race again in October 2007. I am currently doing some strong base training in hopes of racing then.

My "Guide to Distance Running" is in a chest near the computer. Staying on topic, it's got Joe Henderson's "LSD With a German Flavor" in it. I don't have the RW anymore that had a slightly longer version of that article.

Did EvA modify his ideas at all for old, long term guys when you were with him. Or should we both be working up to those 40ish km days?

HRE:

I have "New Guide to Distance Running" from Runner's World published in 1978. Is the one you're talking about the one before that (since it's not "New")? I'm skimming through this book and thinking, man, we used to have really exciting running books...!

Top American Runner: Bernard agat 5-8 134

Moses Mosop 5-7 126. Looks like the top around runners are within +15 and -2 of that size.

Nobby wrote:

HRE:

I have "New Guide to Distance Running" from Runner's World published in 1978. Is the one you're talking about the one before that (since it's not "New")? I'm skimming through this book and thinking, man, we used to have really exciting running books...!

--------------------------------------------------------

You are so right! That was a good book! Several others were good too. I recall a book by Kim Valentine that I owned. It was about how to train high school runners. I think Kim was coaching runners in Boston. It was a good book that applied Lydiard's main ideas fairly well.

There were some good British books, too, that stood out in the 1970s. I recall one written by Watts that was quite good. Another that was interesting, but short, was written by Runner's World and it was full of tidbits about how Lydiard corrected the problems of a collegiate runner who had fallen off performance due to 20 x 440 workouts.

I am interested in the answer to that question also.

Don't want to pester you Vladimir, but at least a few of us are very interested in your training with EvA then and your current training now.

I think that I am having some success with weekly long runs on only a moderate mileage amount. Many 'experts' disagree with this approach, but it seems to work for me.

Nobby has stated that he trained his wife that way on one occasion due to time constraints.

Dear Vladimir, I (and probably most of the readers/posters of this thread) would be very grateful, if you could post some of your sample training weeks using the Van Aaken method. Thank you very much in forward.

Under him my training was not training, but running. I was physically tired (most of the time), but never without a will or desire to run more. Was that youth or him, I do not know as both are no longer with us. Due to physical problems I am just now getting back into running. My plan is to build to running 15 hours a week by Boston- hold that until Peachtree. From then start to build up to 21 hours a week- want to finish that by Chicago. Remain there until the Super Bowl. From there I will be able to start some training (something other than runs). I will start with short repeats (1k- 3k) these will be untimed or undistanced- in other words something like 20 x 1k (on the track) untimed- with a 200 walk between. The alternative would be 20 x 4:00 (trails, roads, etc) with 1:00 walk. Naturally these will be preceded with a warmup run 15-30 minutes. After the final one another warmdown run of about the same distance. My current training is as follows: for the past ten weeks (70 days)I have averaged 13 hours a week. My long run was last week with a nice 4:27. That is where I am and where I am going. Remember as Dr Sheenan stated "we are all experiements in one" I hope this helps. I will have to end here as my morning running partner is here.